Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michael Louis Kelly - State Bar No. 82063 mlk@kirtlandpackard.com Behram V. Parekh - State Bar No. 180361 bvp@kirtlandpackard.com Heather M. Baker - State Bar No. 261303 lunb(a,kirtlandpackard.com ICIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP 2041 Rosecrans Avenue Third Floor El Segundo, California 90245 Telephone: (310) 536-1000 Facsimile: (310) 536-1001 Counsel for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated CONFORMED COPY ORIGINAL FILED SUPERIOR COURT oectuforivta COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1014 MOO R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk By: Amber Hayes, Deputy 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT B C 5 5 4 3 3 LINDA RUBENSTEIN, on behalf of herself ) Case No. and all others similarly situated, ) ) CLASS ACTION Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT FOR: ) v. ) 1. Violation of California's False Advertising ) Laws ("FAL"); Bus. & Prof. Code 17500 et THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP LLC, a ) seq.; Delaware Limited Liability Company, and ) DOES 1-50, inclusive, ) 2. Violation of California's Unfair ) Competition Laws ("UCL"); Bus. & Prof. Defendants. ) Code 17200 et seq.; ) ) 3. Violation of California's Consumer Legal ) Remedies Act ("CLRA"); Civ. Code 1750 ) et seq. ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 94003-00001 164210.01 Exhibit A Page 8
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:11 Plaintiff Linda Rubenstein (also referred to as the "Plaintiff'), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges as follows. Plaintiffs allegations are based on the investigation of counsel, and thus on information and belief, except as to the individual actions of Plaintiff, as to which Plaintiff has personal knowledge. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Linda Rubenstein is a citizen and resident of Los Angeles County, California who purchased clothing from the Neiman Marcus Last Call Store (also referred to as the "Last Call Store" or "Last Call") in Camarillo, California that was purportedly sold for markedly lower than the "Compared to" price that a consumer would pay at traditional Neiman Marcus retail stores. 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that The Neiman Marcus Group LLC (also referred to as "Defendant") is a Delaware limited liability company, with its principle place of business in Irving, Texas, that markets, distributes, and/or sells men's and women's clothing and accessories. Defendant sells its clothing and accessories to consumers in California and throughout the nation. 3. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the persons or entities sued herein as DOES 1-50, inclusive, and therefore sues such Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that each of the DOE Defendants is in some manner legally responsible for the damages suffered by Plaintiff and the members of the Class as alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained, along with appropriate charging allegations, as may be necessary. 4. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, principals, servants, employees, and subsidiaries of each of the remaining Defendants, and were at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency, service, and employment, and directed, consented, ratified, permitted, encouraged, and approved the acts of each remaining Defendant. II 99003-00001 164210.01-2- Exhibit A Page 9
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 6 of 34 Page ID #:12 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2 5. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein under the California 3 Constitution. 4 6. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to California Civil Code 1780(d) because 5 Defendant does business here. 6 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Los Angeles County Superior Court Rule 7 2.3(a)(1)(A) because this is a class action. 8 8. Out-of-state participants can be brought before this Court pursuant to California's "long- 9 arm" jurisdictional statute. 10 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11 9. Neiman Marcus offers upscale assortments of apparel, accessories, jewelry, beauty and 12 decorative home products to the affluent consumer. Neiman Marcus operates 41 stores 13 across the United States. These store operations total more than 6.5 million gross square LAW O FFICES C.) 14 feet with over $400 million in sale revenues in 2013. 15 10. Defendant also operates thirty six Last Call clearance stores. These Last Call Stores are an c2? 16 alternative way for large retail companies to capture a larger pool of consumers because 17 they offer clothing and accessories at discounted prices from in-demand retail stores. 18 11. Outlet stores are a popular avenue for sale-seeking consumers because in-demand retail 19 stores, such as Neiman Marcus, will often sell clothes that are "after season" or clothing 20 that had very little popularity and did not sell. To mitigate any more losses on the clothing, 21 the retail stores will sell this clothing at various outlet malls for a discount. 22 12. Contagion among large retail stores operating outlet stores have spread throughout outlet- 23 specific malls and shoppers have become accustomed to seeing products that once were 24 sold at the traditional retail store. This popularity has been noted, for example, apparel 25 sales at factory outlets rose 17.8% in 2011, according to estimates by market research firm 26 NPD Group. Meanwhile, apparel sales industry-wide rose a meager 1.4%.' 27 28 'hap ://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/07/business/la-fi-0807-cover-outlet-malls-20110807 99003-00001 164210 01-3- Exhibit A Page 10
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 7 of 34 Page ID #:13 1 13 Furthermore, the chief industry analyst at NPD Group states, "What outlets have been able 2 to do is touch the core of the American consumer. There's no question that what we're 3 witnessing is the transformation of how and where consumers are shopping. The recession 4 really kicked it into high gear for outlet centers." 5 14. It is, therefore, no surprise that Defendant has immersed themselves into this lucrative 6 industry to continue to grow their robust billion dollar business. Plaintiff and other Outlet 7 Store shoppers (also referred to as the "Class") were also looking to obtain benefits from 8 Defendant's discounted stores, which included buying the alleged same exact clothing after 9 season and/or excess clothing that Defendant's traditional stores once carried, but for a 10 discounted price. 11 15. Defendant labels its Last Call clothing with a tag that shows a markedly lower price from 12 the "Compared to" price which corresponds to the price that appears to be used in 13 traditional Neiman Marcus retail stores. Plaintiff was lured in by this price difference and 14 as a result purchased multiple items of clothing from Defendant's Last Call Store in July of LL0 P'4 15 2014. 16 16. Defendant's marketing techniques purposely suggests that the "Compared to" price 17 corresponds to the exact same article of clothing when sold at the traditional Neiman 18 Marcus retail store, but at a substantial discount, when in fact it is not. 19 17. Defendant's Last Call clothing is actually not intended for the sale at the traditional 20 Neiman Marcus stores as the "Compared to" pricing strategy suggests but rather strictly for 21 the Last Call Store. Therefore, Defendant's price tags on the Last Call clothing are labeled 22 with arbitrary inflated "Compared to" prices that are purely imaginative because it was 23 never sold at the traditional Neiman Marcus store and therefore can't be compared to any 24 price. Thus the insinuated discount is false and misleading. 25 18. The Federal Trade Commission has also heard complaints by many members of Congress 26 that see this practice occurring throughout large retail stores. Specifically, the 27 Congressional members state, "it is a common practice at outlet stores to advertise a retail 28 price alongside the outlet store price - even on made-for-outlet merchandise that does not 99003-00001 164210.01-4- Exhibit A Page 11
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 8 of 34 Page ID #:14 sell at regular retail locations. Since the item was never sold in the regular retail store or at the retail price, the retail price is impossible to substantiate. We believe this practice may be a violation of the FTC's Guides Against Deceptive Pricing (16 CFR 233). 2 19. The FTC guidelines are as follows: i. "Many members of the purchasing public believe that a manufacturer's list price, or suggested retail price, is the price at which an article is generally sold. Therefore, if a reduction from this price is advertised, many people will believe that they are being offered a genuine bargain. To the extent that list or suggested retail prices do not in fact correspond to prices at which a substantial number of sales of the article in question are made, the advertisement of a reduction may mislead the consumer. A former price is not necessarily fictitious merely because no sales at the advertised price were made. The advertiser should be especially careful, however, in such a case, that the price is one at which the product was openly and actively offered for sale, for a reasonably substantial period of time, in recent, regular course of her business, honestly and in good faith - and, of course, not for the purpose of establishing a fictitious higher price on which a deceptive comparison might be based. "(Emphasis added). ii. "It bears repeating that the manufacturer, distributor or retailer must in every case act honestly and in good faith in advertising a list price, and not with the intention of establishing a basis, or creating an instrumentality, for a deceptive comparison in any local or other trade area. For instance, a manufacturer may not affix price tickets containing inflated prices as an accommodation to particular retailers who intend to use such prices as the basis for advertising fictitious price reductions." 2http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/sens-and-rep-to-ftc-outlet-stores-may-be-mislead ing-consumers 99003-00001 164210 01-5- Exhibit A Page 12
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 9 of 34 Page ID #:15 16 C.F.R. 233.3. 20. Furthermore, due to Plaintiff's reasonable belief that the Last Call Store was an "outlet" store she believed the clothing was authentic and once sold at a traditional Neiman Marcus retail store since this is how outlet stores market themselves. She subsequently was under the impression that Last Call clothing was made with the same quality as all Neiman Marcus clothing, which is not true. The Last Call clothing does not have the same qualities as the traditional Neiman Marcus clothing. 21. Defendant's misleading pricing techniques led Plaintiff and the Class to believe the Last Call clothing was authentic Neiman Marcus clothing, and in reliance thereon, decided to purchase the clothing from Defendant's Last Call Store. As a result, Plaintiff was damaged in purchasing the Last Call clothing because she paid for clothing based on Defendant's representations and perceived discounts, but she did not experience any of Defendant's promised benefits shopping at the Last Call Store. LAW OFFICES 22. Defendant's misrepresentations regarding the Last Call clothing and the purported origin of the clothing were designed to, and did, lead Plaintiff and the putative Class to believe that the Last Call clothing was of equal quality and sold at the traditional Neiman Marcus retail store before it became an item for sale at the Last Call Store. Further, Plaintiff and members of the Class relied on Defendant's misrepresentations and would not have paid as much, if at all, for the clothing but for Defendant's misleading advertising and representations. 23. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to enjoin the ongoing deception of thousands of California consumers by Defendant, and to recover the monetary gains taken by this unlawful practice. CLASS DEFINITIONS AND CLASS ALLEGATIONS 24. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated and, as members of the Class or subclasses (collectively referred to hereafter as the "Class") defined as follows: (1) California Class: The Class that Plaintiff seeks to represent ("the California 99003-00001 164210.01-6- Exhibit A Page 13
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 10 of 34 Page ID #:16 1 Class") consists of all persons who purchased Last Call clothing in California 2 labeled to make consumers believe it was originally sold at the traditional Neiman 3 Marcus store but instead was intended only for the sale at the Last Call Store at a 4 lesser quality within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint. 5 Excluded from the Class are Defendant, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or 6 controlled person of Defendant, as well as the officers and directors of Defendant, 7 and the immediate family member of any such person. Also excluded is any judge 8 who may preside over this case. 9 25. Numerosity: The proposed Class is so numerous that individual joinder of all its members 10 is impracticable. Due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved, Plaintiff believes 11 that the total number of Class members is at least in the thousands and that members of the 12 Class are numerous and geographically dispersed across California and the United States. 1:4 -tt 13 While the exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time, such 14 information can be ascertained through appropriate investigation and discovery. The -tt O 15 disposition of the claims of the Class members in a single class action will provide -I A 16 substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court. 17 26. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate: There are many questions of law 1:4 18 and fact common to the representative Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions 19 substantially predominate over any questions that may affect individual Class members. 20 The common questions of fact and law include, but are not limited to, the following: 21 i. Whether Defendant's advertising was and is misleading; 22 ii. Whether Defendant's representations were likely to mislead and did in fact 23 mislead Plaintiff and Class members; 24 iii. Whether Defendant was willful, deceptive, and oppressive in its conduct; and 25 iv. Whether Defendant engaged in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business 26 practices; 27 v. Whether Defendant misrepresented and/or failed to disclose material facts 28 about its product pricing and discounts; 99003-00001 1642 I 0.01-7- Exhibit A Page 14
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 11 of 34 Page ID #:17 1 vi. Whether Defendant has made false or misleading statements of fact 2 concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of its price reductions. 3 27. These common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that may affect 4 individual Class members in that the claims of all Class members for each of the claims 5 herein can be established with common proof. Additionally, a class action would be 6 "superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the 7 controversy" because: (1) Class members have little interest in individually controlling the 8 prosecution of separate actions because the individual damages claims of each Class 9 member are not substantial enough to warrant individual filings; (2) Plaintiff is not aware 10 of other lawsuits against Defendant commenced by or on behalf of members of the Class; 04 11 and (3) because the disputed advertisements are common to all Class members and because 12 resolution of the claims of Plaintiff will resolve the claims of the remaining Class, 13 certification does not pose any manageability problems. C.) 14 28. Typicality: Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Ph' 15 Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been similarly affected by Defendant's conduct C 16 since they all relied on Defendant's representations concerning the true authentically and 17 purported discounts of the clothing and purchased the clothing based on those 18 representations. 19 29. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the 20 interests of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in handling 21 complex class action litigation. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to prosecuting this 22 action vigorously on behalf of the Class and have the financial resources to do so. 23 30. Superiority of Class Action: Plaintiff and the members of the Class suffered and will 24 continue to suffer harm as a result of Defendant's unlawful and wrongful conduct. A class 25 action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the 26 present controversy. Class members have little interest in individually controlling the 27 prosecution of separate actions because the individual damages claims of each Class 28 member are not substantial enough to warrant individual filings. In sum, for many, if not 99003-00001 164210.01-8- Exhibit A Page 15
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 12 of 34 Page ID #:18 1 most, Class members, a class action is the only feasible mechanism that will allow them an 2 opportunity for legal redress and justice. 3 31. Adjudication of individual Class members' claims with respect to Defendant would, as a 4 practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to the 5 adjudication, and could substantially impair or impede the ability of other Class members 6 to protect their interests. 7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 8 Business and Professions Code 17500 9 (Violation of the False Advertising Law) 10 (By Plaintiff and the Class Against Defendant) 11 32. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-31 above as if set forth in full. 1=4 12 33. California Business and Professions Code 17500 provides that "[i]t is unlawful for any... 13 corporation... with intent... to dispose of... personal property... to induce the public to 14 enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or PLI 15 disseminated... from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other 16 publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other -tt 17 manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement... which is untrue or E-4 18 misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be 19 known, to be untrue or misleading..." 20 34. Similarly, this section provides, "[Nb o price shall be advertised as a former price of any 21 advertised thing, unless the alleged former price was the prevailing market price as above 22 defined within three months next immediately preceding the publication of the 23 advertisement or unless the date when the alleged former price did prevail is clearly, 24 exactly and conspicuously stated in the advertisement." 25 35. Defendant misled consumers by making untrue statements and failing to disclose what is 26 required as stated in the Code, as alleged above. 27 36. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's misleading and false advertising, Plaintiff 28 and the members of the Class have suffered injury in fact and have lost money. 99003-00001 164210.01-9- Exhibit A Page 16
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 13 of 34 Page ID #:19 1 37. The misleading and false advertising described herein presents a continuing threat to 2 Plaintiff and the Class in that Defendant persists and continues to engage in these practices, 3 and will not cease doing so unless and until forced to do so by this Court. Defendant's 4 conduct will continue to cause irreparable injury to consumers unless enjoined or 5 restrained. 6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 7 Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. 8 (Violation of the Unfair Competition Law) 9 (By Plaintiff and the Class Against Defendant) 10 38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-37 above as if set forth in full. ral 11 39. California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. (hereafter referred to as the 12 "Unfair Competition Law" or "UCL") authorizes private lawsuits to enjoin acts of "unfair 13 competition," which include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice. 14 40. The UCL imposes strict liability. Plaintiff need not prove that Defendant intentionally or 15 negligently engaged in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices but only that 16 such practices occurred. 17 41. The material misrepresentations, concealment, and non-disclosures by Defendant as part of 18 its marketing and advertising of the Last Call Store clothing are unlawful, unfair, and 19 fraudulent business practices prohibited by the UCL. 20 42. In carrying out such marketing, Defendant has violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, 21 the False Advertising Law, and various other laws, regulations, statutes, and/or common 22 law duties. Defendant's business practices alleged herein, therefore, are unlawful within 23 the meaning of the UCL. 24 43. The harm to Plaintiff and members of the public outweighs the utility of Defendant's 25 practices and, consequently, Defendant's practices, as set forth fully above, constitute an 26 unfair business act or practice within the meaning of the UCL. 27 44. Defendant's practices are additionally unfair because they have caused Plaintiff and the 28 Class substantial injury, which is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to 99003-00001 164210.01-10- Exhibit A Page 17
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 14 of 34 Page ID #:20 1 consumers or to competition, and which is not an injury the consumers themselves could 2 have reasonably avoided. 3 45. Defendant's practices, as set forth above, have misled the general public in the past and 4 will mislead the general public in the future. Consequently, Defendant's practices 5 constitute an unlawful and unfair business practice within the meaning of the UCL. 6 46. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17204, an action for unfair competition may 7 be brought by any "person... who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or 8 property as a result of such unfair competition." Defendant's wrongful misrepresentations 9 and omissions have directly and seriously injured Plaintiff and the putative Class by 10 causing them to purchase the discounted clothing based upon false and misleading 11 labeling. 12 47. The unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices of Defendant are ongoing and 13 present a continuing threat that members of the public will be misled into purchasing the C.) 14 clothing from the Last Call Store and that upon learning that the Last Call Store clothing cel) 15 was never sold at the traditional Neiman Marcus stores and the "Compared to" price is 16 arbitrary and inflated to entice consumers, like Plaintiff, they will be damaged financially. 17 48. Pursuant to the UCL, Plaintiff is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief 18 ordering Defendant to cease this unfair competition, as well as disgorgement and 19 restitution to Plaintiff and the Class of all of Defendant's revenues associated with its 20 unfair competition, or such portion of those revenues as the Court may find equitable. 21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 22 Civil Code 1750 et seq. 23 (Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act) 24 (By Plaintiff and the Class Against Defendant) 25 49. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-48 above as if set forth in full. 26 50. The Consumer Legal Remedies Act (hereafter referred to as the "CLRA") creates a non- 27 exclusive statutory remedy for unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts 28 or business practices. See Reveles v. Toyota by the Bay, 57 Cal. App. 4th 1139, 1164 99003-00001 164210.01-11- Exhibit A Page 18
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 15 of 34 Page ID #:21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (1997). Its self-declared purpose is to protect consumers against these unfair and deceptive business practices, and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection. Cal. Civ. Code 1760. The CLRA was designed to be liberally construed and applied in favor of consumers to promote its underlying purposes. Id. 51. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has violated paragraphs 5, 7, 9 and 13 of Civil Code Section 1770(a) by engaging in the unfair and/or deceptive acts and practices set forth herein. Defendant's unfair and deceptive business practices in carrying out the marketing program described herein were and are intended to and did and do result in the purchase of Defendant's Last Call Store clothing by consumers, including Plaintiff, in violation of the CLRA. Cal. Civ. Code 1770 et seq. 52. As a result of Defendant's unfair and/or deceptive business practices, Plaintiff and all purchasers of the Last Call Store clothing have suffered damage and lost money in that they paid for goods that does not have the qualities as represented. Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to an order enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive business practices alleged herein. 53. Pursuant to Section 1782 of the CLRA, Plaintiff intends to notify Defendant in writing of the particular violations of Section 1770 of the CLRA (the "Notice Letter"). If Defendant fails to comply with Plaintiff's demands within thirty days of receipt of the Notice Letter, pursuant to Section 1782 of the CLRA, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to further request damages under the CLRA. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, prays for relief and judgment as follows: 1. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendant, its agents, servants and employees, and all persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in, and continuing to engage in, the unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices alleged above and that may yet be discovered in the prosecution of this action; 2. For certification of the putative class; 99003-00001 164210.01-12- Exhibit A Page 19
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 16 of 34 Page ID #:22 3. For restitution and disgorgement of all money or property wrongfully obtained by Defendant by means of its herein-alleged unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; 4. For an accounting by Defendant for any and all profits derived by Defendant from its herein-alleged unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent conduct and business practices; 5. An award of statutory damages according to proof, except that no damages are currently sought on Plaintiff's Cause of Action regarding the Consumer Legal Remedies Act at this time; 6. An award of general damages according to proof, except that no damages are currently sought on Plaintiff's Cause of Action regarding the Consumer Legal Remedies Act at this time; 7. An award of special damages according to proof, except that no damages are currently sought on Plaintiff's Cause of Action regarding the Consumer Legal Remedies Act at this time; 8. Exemplary damages, except that no damages are currently sought on Plaintiff's Cause of Action regarding the Consumer Legal Remedies Act at this time; 9. For attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws, including, without limitation, the CLRA and the common law private attorney general doctrine; 10. For costs of suit; and 11. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: August 4, 2014 KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP By: MICHAEL LOUIS KELLY BEHRAM V. PAREKH HEATHER M. BAKER Counsel for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated 99003-00001 164210.01-13- Exhibit A Page 20
Case 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 17 of 34 Page ID #:23 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. DATED: August 4, 2014 KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP By: MICHAEL LOUIS KELLY BEHRAM V. PAREKH HEATHER M. BAKER Counsel for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated 99003-00001 164210.01-14- Exhibit A Page 21